The Mission : Why was this so critically derided?

Why was this so critically derided?

Has a 65% on RT, and I think Siskel and Ebert gave it a thumbs down. Yet the audience score on RT is 87%, has a 7.5 on IMDB, as well as winning the PalmD'or and getting a best picture NOM. So what gives, were these critics just following standard protocol of praising a director's previously acclaimed work, and then lambasting their next picture no matter the quality?

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

Re: Why was this so critically derided?

Pretty sure 65% isn't bad whatsoever, although it definitely isn't great like The Killing Fields' reception. Still, I'd like a solid answer as to whether or not this film is worth watching, since it sounds like it could be magnificent at its full potential and ideally would get a percentage at least in the late 80s.

"Why would anyone do drugs when they could just mow a lawn?"

Re: Why was this so critically derided?

Well personally I think this film is brilliant, if a little self-consciously "artsy" at times, which no doubt turned a lot of people off. But it has great music, acting, and cinematography. The story I think shows the real meaning of love and sacrifice. It's a damn good film.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.
Top